MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412935476 · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000011734

Robotic Skull Contouring for Facial Reconstruction—A Cadaveric Study

2025· article· en· W4412935476 on OpenAlexaff
Karan Gandhi, Corey A. Smith, Sami Khoury, Louis M. Ferreira, Corey C. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarvingMedicineCadaveric spasmContouringFacial reconstructionSurgeryComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Orbital trauma is a complex facial injury that can result in significant morbidity secondary to functional and cosmetic changes. Autologous calvarial bone grafting remains the gold standard in addressing orbital fractures, offering good biocompatibility and robust long-term outcomes. However, manual carving of the bone grafts is time-consuming and can increase the risk of inaccuracies that can affect cosmesis and function. OBJECTIVE: The authors set out to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of robotic bone graft carving in the repair of orbital defects. METHODS: Orbital defects were simulated in 8 orbits. Calvarial bone was harvested and carved with the robot using virtual preoperative planning. Accuracy of the reconstruction was measured using a surface deviation map. Efficiency was measured by looking at carving time. A retrospective chart review provided operative time benchmarks for similar defects in cases of manual carving. RESULTS: Robotic carving achieved submillimeter accuracy (RMS 0.25-0.38 mm error). After multiple rounds of parametric optimization, carving time was also reduced from over 40 minutes to under 12 minutes. The average operative time after manual carving was 55 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted bone carving offers a very precise and time-efficient alternative to manual bone carving in orbital reconstruction. With further validation in the operating room, this technique may enhance the accuracy of the reconstruction and significantly increase efficiency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207